Two stories about LNG and Passamaquoddy Bay

Just as there are two sides of Passamaquoddy Bay there are two sides to the liquefied natural gas story. In the Nov. 26-27 op-ed by Peter Norris much reference is made to the opposition in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, to apparently any LNG proposal facility in the bay area.

Figures are given with reference to the fishing and tourism industries and as one reads the story you would tend to think all this goes away with an LNG facility going into operation. I have noticed, as well as many others have, that the flair for dramatics is the weapon of choice for those who oppose growth in the area and especially with the LNG facility proposals on the table. Why indeed do the tourism and fishing industries become

implicated for apparent disruption with an LNG facility in operation?

Ships go by the proposed Robbinston site now in transit upriver to the Bayside, Canada, docks, and I hear no reference to negative impact on the fishing or tourism industry. I would personally trust the integrity of an LNG tanker over the ships registered in Liberia seen going to Bayside when I am out boating. Besides, I don’t think the lobsters, salmon, urchins or crabs know the difference between the ships.

If the Robbinston LNG facility began at an unloading rate of a ship a week and progressed to two a week, then roughly 100 transits would be occurring during a year. If an announcement that 100 more transits were coming to Bayside each year, do you think we would be hearing the same level of concerns? I don’t think so. Would there be that same concern for the fishing industry? Probably not, so what is the difference that makes the fishing industry suffer with LNG ships? Could this simply be a dramatic stance to take with no foundation?

Why is the tourism industry going to suffer and what is the basis for this assumption? Norris writes, “Tourism is referenced as being entirely dependent on the unspoiled views and clean waters of the bay.” Unspoiled views can be subjective. Personally, I don’t care for the open gravel pit that has grown at the Bayside docks.

I don’t care for all the salmon farms on either side of the bay with the boating limitations they cause and the debris in the water that surrounds these operations. However, at least this type of operation is more conducive to the surrounding area. Ships and docks are an accepted site along the coast. The only structure at the Robbinston site that would be of any visual concern would be the storage tank. All other buildings would be of a one or two-story size nature. Therefore, is one storage tank all that stands between the success of the existing tourism industry and its downfall?

If anyone would just stop for a moment and put aside all the dramatic implications of both industries and the millions of dollars that are referenced, what can anyone say logically that will be that impacting on an issue created by an LNG facility that will actually disrupt these industries, let alone be their implied downfall?

With reference to concern for the permitting process and the questioning of how fair and reasonable the American process is, the people of New Brunswick should have their own tales to tell about how paperwork is processed for some of the industry leaders in their province.

If people don’t want the LNG project then why not just come out and say so and stop hiding behind dramatic statements of doom and gloom. The process will accept your opinion whether it is liked or not, because that is something Americans have fought for and helped others to gain as a sacred right.

The safety and environmental record of this industry is well-documented on numerous Internet sites and yet some continue to dispute the data. An LNG site is not the sole answer to the economic concerns of the area but it is a good start. Why in the Norris op-ed is it OK to reference dollars that include all of the trickle- down effect of the fishing and tourism industries, but when

referencing the LNG facility only direct payroll dollars are mentioned?

I recently returned from a two-day visit at the Cove Point, Md., LNG facility. This facility exists in conjunction with the local fishing industry and a very visible recreational boating area. The entrance to the facility is along a residential drive. The facility recently donated land back to the county and the county built a swimming and ballpark facility within 2,000 feet of the main plant. This facility also is adjacent to a state park. The facility is a good partner with the community and was noted by area people for being a generous donor to local causes and charity.

The time has come for the area to think in terms of acceptable growth that can be a good thing for the area. Will the Robbinston proposal benefit everyone? Probably not. It will have an economic impact primarily in eastern Washington County. Will it benefit St. Andrews? I would tend to think not because it is in another country.

Would an LNG facility in St. Andrews benefit eastern Washington County? Conversely, I would also think not. However, I have not been faced with any hard evidence that it will negatively impact our Canadian neighbors.

Rarely do I hear mention of the LNG facility being built in nearby Saint John, New Brunswick. Also, I don’t hear about the oil refinery in Saint John or the nuclear plant just south of Saint John and 25 miles from Robbinston. What negative impact to fishing and tourism is derived from these locations?

If we are going to talk about two sides of Passamaquoddy Bay then let both sides remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mike Footer is a Robbinston resident who supports Downeast LNG.